Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Protected Territory Established for Jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

August 21, 2012

Protected Territory Established for Jaguars in Arizona and New Mexico

By Chad Love

Move over mountain lions, there's a new cat in town, and yesterday it received its own Rhode Island-sized piece of ground to roam in...

From this story on scientificamerican.com

Jaguars, the third-largest cats after lions and tigers—and the biggest in the Western Hemisphere—used to live here. During the 18th and 19th centuries they were spotted in Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas. Sometimes the cats roamed as far east as North Carolina and as far north as Colorado.

As humans encroached on their territory, the endangered cats' range shifted south. Today it stretches from northern Argentina into Mexico's Sonoran Desert. But jaguars cross into the American Southwest frequently enough for some conservationists to argue that they deserve critical habitat protection. Now, after years of legal wrangling, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has agreed. In a plan published yesterday, the agency proposed designating 838,232 acres—an area larger than Rhode Island—as critical jaguar habitat.

According to the story, the designation means that federal agencies cannot fund or authorize any activities that may adversely modify the critical habitat area, which covers parts of southeastern Arizona and a smaller area of southwestern New Mexico.

Thoughts? Anyone ever see a jaguar or hear of someone else seeing one? The jaguar in the picture is one that was captured and collared (and later died) in Arizona a few years back.

 

Comments (29)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Kyle VanBritson wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

While this is a very neat idea and great from a conservation point of view,concerning the jaguars, is this exactly a smart decision? My thoughts are: How will jaguars impact the natural ecosystem? How are locals going to react to the fact they now have a jungle cat roaming not too far from them? Is this a high fence operation or more of a free roam operation? Just some thoughts/concerns about it. While it seems like they've given this great thought and planning, I just don't know how smart it is to dump jungle cats into a habitat they only reportedly roamed a couple hundred years ago, alot can change in a couple hundred years...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Reintroducing an apex predator into a region that has been void for over 100 years. Boy, this sounds familiar......Oh yeah, how could I almost forget. Wolves were reintroduced to the northern rockies and that move has worked out extremely well.

To make a mistake the first time is human. To make the same mistake again is ignorance.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

This will clear the way for naming everything north of the 35th parallel critical Sasquatch territory and finally finishing off the economy.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hjwarr3 wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Does it actually say anywhere that they are planning on "reintroducing" the cats? Sounds to me like it is just keeping that area of land protected from development or progression, not dumping a bunch of new cats off in the desert.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bass bomber wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

I don't think they are reintroducing the cats. They have been slowing coming north for years now. I think its a good idea because we basically kicked them out of their land. But I can see what everyone else is saying about the wolf introductions nit going well and if this would be like that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Quoting Ron, "here you go again"
One more time we are setting up a protected area for a predator, and again it is the folks that live on the edge that are hurt, hard working ranchers will lose more livestock to a predator and will be unable to defend their livestock or their land for that matter, from the jags. The grizzlies in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming were not re-introduced, they were "protected" and see how well that is doing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from peppeli wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Has anyone ever read Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain," google it and educate yourself. Here is an excerpt to get you started, "We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."

+12 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Great quote Pep. Thank you for sharing.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

That's the kind of romantic cr@p that causes loss of livestock. try explaining to a sheep rancher that has lost a quarter of his spring lambs to wolves or coyotes that it is ok, so there can be this mystic fake love affair with the spirit of a wolf.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from iapark wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Loss of livestock is a terrible argument against reintroducing animals to where they once existed before we impacted their existence. Its my understanding that ranchers can be reimbursed for loss of livestock and get money for methods besides barb wire to prevent predation, one example of such funding:

Program

15.666 Endangered Species Conservation-wolf Livestock Loss Compensation And Prevention

"This financial assistance opportunity can be used by eligible States and Indian tribes in supporting projects that assist livestock producers in undertaking proactive, non-lethal activities to reduce the risk of livestock loss due to predation by wolves or to compensate livestock producers for livestock losses caused by wolves. Appropriated funds will be divided equally in support of these two objectives. "

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

The problem with these kinds of introductions (or as pointed out "protection") is that the animals are introduced/protected etc and when their population reaches established goals set by biologists; the anti-hunting organizations simply file lawsuits to keep hunting seasons from happening. The fact is, if the forest service was allowed to do their job and manage these predators to keep their numbers at goal levels there would not be such an outcry from ranchers and sportsmen. Unfortunately, the forest service would be better off not doing these protections/reintroductions if their biologists are not allowed to do their job.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Just because you get paid for dead livestock doesn't make it OK. How would like to go out to your pasture and see a bunch of your livestock laying dead. It would be demoralizing to think of the resources spent on raising the livestock to have them slaughtered. I no longer dairy farm, but I can assure you I would have rather made money from selling milk than getting a check for a dead animal assuming payment was equal.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

I wouldn't mind having the jaguars around but it needs to be handled wisely (this is always a problem) and comprehensively for reimbursement for livestock loss and management of the jaguar population should it rebound. I would really doubt that the jaguar population was ever very high. They were loners for the most part and had large territories. They need to leave the huggy feely stuff out of the equation and that is always an issue.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

hmmm...maybe less people will illegally cross the borders of those two states!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from DesertWalker wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Well as an Arizona resident I having spent a countless number of days in the desert and sky islands I have not seen one and do not know anyone who has. I have heard of people who have seen them though. Now with that being said the article said nothing about reintroducing the animal to the area, it simply said that the area that they have been seen would be protected from development. Its not like when I am out I can harvest one of these animals if I was to see one. So with this being said all this seems to do is to protect the development of land based off of spotting of the jaguar. How does this hurt? Now we have more hunting land for other animals that we dont have to worry about becoming developed.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

The cat in the picture was named "Macho B" by AZ Game & Fish biologists. They are the same people who killed it by repeatedly injecting it with sedatives so they could study it. Then they tried to cover it up by saying Macho B had a kidney problem. Thanks to a whistle blower who got tired of G&F biologists working outside of regs, the truth came out.

Anyway, this federal designation is a bad idea. It has many negative consequences, and many people no longer believe these consequences are unintended. For example, there is a political hot potato involving reopening a mine in the area. This designation surely will hurt further efforts to open the mine.

Another prime example of these federal designations, which end up hurting people: You've heard of Tombstone, right? "The town too tough to die?" It's also in southern Arizona, and it's dying right now because of a federal designation of "critical habitat" for some owls in the area. Last year there was a massive wildfire (Monument Fire) in the area. The monsoon rains that followed caused mud and rock slides because the vegetation was wiped out. In turn, the pipes that supply Tombstone's water for drinking and fire protection were wiped out. Parts of the miles-long line are under 12-15 feet of rock, debris and mud. This "critical habitat" designations prevents the town from repairing its water supply with modern equipment. Google it, and you will see just how ABSURDLY ridiculous this order its. The Feds won't even allow a wheelbarrow to be used (let alone a backhoe or heavy equipment) because a wheelbarrow is considered "mechanized" and modern and simply will not be allowed. The Feds said the town can use horses, shovels, and people on foot. That's it.

This pipe is 26 miles long. It was in place before Arizona was a state. It was in place long before there was a National Forest Service, and before anyone coined the term "critical habitat."

Don't feed me any poetic lines, because when the rubber meets the road these days, common sense is gone when the Feds are involved!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from tybostev5 wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

I am from southern New Mexico and a few years ago (3 or 4) a guy from the bootheel of NM was hunting cougars with his hounds when they treed a jaguar. So yes, there are Jaguars living in this area.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from spuddog wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Some good comments here. This is not the same as wolf reintroduction. The Jaguars are already there, but they mostly wander in from mexico. Jaguars live in very diverse habitat. Not all are Jungle cats. This is not a situation where they are going to become over populated like cougars in California. They had a slim population even before they were extirpated. This is fringe territory for them. I'm not sure about the land issues. Proverbs, you may have some good points here and maybe this isn't the way to do it. That aside, I'd love to see a population of Jaguars return to the SouthWest. You have less of a chance of running into one than you do a cougar. I do know two people who have see them. One was a guide down by Wilcox whose dogs thought they had a cougar treed. One was an old guy who spent a lot of time up in the Santa Catalina's outside of Tucson. AZ has some very unique wildlife (parrots, coatis, javelina, etc). The jaguar is part of this. I might move home just for the chance to see one.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Regarding the governments compensation of livestock being killed by wolves, yea you might get some compensation for any livestock that are directly killed by wolves, but that takes time and a lot of paperwork, and does not compensate for the following- a rancher had wolves harass his herd, killing a couple of cows, they panicked and down came fences, more stock injured, the herd aborted the calves, and the rancher had a huge expense moving the remaining animals to safer pasture in the dead of winter. No federal compensation for those expenses. So don't tell me that reintroducing jags is worth it, especially if it is not coming out of your pocket.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Red Salas wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

coachsjike I agree with you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from spuddog wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

RJ, you really don't get this. This isn't reintroduction. No one is moving animals. Unless something radically changed the jaguar population would never be anywhere close to the size of the current mountain lion population and jaguars are even more reclusive. Wolves are in packs and course animals. Cats spot and stalk. Wolves and Jaguars are apples and oranges.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bioguy01 wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

TO ALL:

There's a communication problem here. The jaguars above were not reintroduced, rather they were rediscovered. They made their way back into the US on their own accord...nobody moved them. There are very few of these big cats living in the US. They are extremely elusive and very well camouflaged, and though they are a big cat and a top predator, they do have a place in the ecosystem. They should be respected and appreciated like all of god's creatures, and when the time comes, they will also need to be managed. Let's pay very careful attention to how wolf hunting management plays out now, because 15-20 years down the line, we may be dealing with a similar situation with jaguars. Surely we can make space for a few of these marvelous animals.

peppeli - Has anyone ever read Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain," google it and educate yourself. Here is an excerpt to get you started, "We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."

This is my absolute favorite reads out of that whole book, and I'm glad you posted this quote! For those who have not read it, Leopold is referencing a time when he shot a wolf. Though Leopold was an avid hunter and a conservationist well ahead of his time.

There is another Leopold quote I would like to share, "To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering." The jaguar is one of the "cogs"...it got dropped on the floor for a minute, but we found it again, now let's not lose it for good.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

It sounds like the Federal government is using the Jaguar as an excuse to push an agenda that the article is not eluding to. The US fish and wildlife service is corrupt and anything they have their hand in is not going to be good, they could **** up a wet dream. I have nothing against Jaguars moving into areas naturally on their own, but with the US fish and wildlife stepping in we are going to have to watch this like a hawk.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from NCHunter wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

There are a few things here I would like to see clarified

1. Is this land publicly or privately held, or a mixture of both?

2. If there are private holdings inside the area can they be developed with private money? The way the article reads the designation only applies to Federally funded projects and not to State or Private projects.

"According to the story, the designation means that federal agencies cannot fund or authorize any activities that may adversely modify the critical habitat area"

3. If this does stop private development will land owners be compensated for their losses?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Just so no one is confused: We don't need a federal designation on the land in order to conserve this jaguar species.

Jaguars have long used this land. In recent years, with more and more trail cams and other technology, they have become more visible. I have long hunted this area, harvesting many deer and two mountain lions over the years. Have never seen a jaguar during the day, but have seen them in my hunting area in night photos. In this same area, I've logged dozens of mountain lions. That's just to give you an idea of much more secrative the jags are.

The federal land designations are used to control use of land, and activities that can be done on them. If we allow these types of federal designations, we may begin losing hunting rights to them, as several animal rights groups are using these designations to try to stop all hunting. Remember, this designation allows the Feds to stop activity "that may" impeded the species. Way too open to interpretation.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Fat guy Aaron wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

I live in Southern Arizona, we have known we have Jaguars forever, They won't adversely effect the ecosystem because they are a native species. I am glad they are being protected after a dumb ass contractor for Arizona Game and fish killed the last one. As soon as that one was gone, there was another one roaming his territory, There are more out there than you think. every couple of years lion doge tree one and we get new pictures. We have also found ocelots. Some of the mountains down here are so rugged you don't know what the hell is going to be in them, I'm glad they have some protection now.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from mike0714 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

peppeli bravo!!!!!!!! I have traveled all over and Escudilla and Sipe Wildlife area are still my favorite places on earth! First time I have heard anyone quote form Aldo Leopold used outside of bio class or during studies with AZGFD! This passage and the one about the killing of the last grizzly on Escudilla where the inspiration for me to get Environmental biology degree. (ALL others out there who have not read them DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from mike0714 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Also anyone who is not for this is insane! The AZGFD has had this distinction on the books since the 90's and has been trying to get federal help for years! Also Macho B was caught because 2 idiots thought it would be cool to catch one and baited a mountain lion foot snare with jaguar scat. Macho B was also the oldest living Jaguar on record and had a bad reaction to the first time it was sedated.(you cant remove a big cat from these traps without sedation). Almost two weeks later scientist concluded that the cat was having health problems recaptured it. after a vet checked macho b and found kidney damage euthanization was the only option. It was not the fault of anyone but the two people who set the scat with the trap and they both have been arrested and charged with crimes.

finally wolves are nothing like jaguars!!!! there are maybe a half dozen in the whole state. they have similar space and food requirements a a large tom Mountain lion. The country that they are found in is extremely rugged and not great for ranching. PS Jay and RJ my friend from Patagonia has seen only one Jaguar in over 40 years of living, ranching, and hunting In the area. Yet he has killed mountain lions 8 of the last 10 years and see's at least a half dozen a year. what do you think is the bigger problem?

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from peppeli wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Has anyone ever read Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain," google it and educate yourself. Here is an excerpt to get you started, "We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."

+12 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bioguy01 wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

TO ALL:

There's a communication problem here. The jaguars above were not reintroduced, rather they were rediscovered. They made their way back into the US on their own accord...nobody moved them. There are very few of these big cats living in the US. They are extremely elusive and very well camouflaged, and though they are a big cat and a top predator, they do have a place in the ecosystem. They should be respected and appreciated like all of god's creatures, and when the time comes, they will also need to be managed. Let's pay very careful attention to how wolf hunting management plays out now, because 15-20 years down the line, we may be dealing with a similar situation with jaguars. Surely we can make space for a few of these marvelous animals.

peppeli - Has anyone ever read Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain," google it and educate yourself. Here is an excerpt to get you started, "We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something new to me in those eyes - something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters' paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view."

This is my absolute favorite reads out of that whole book, and I'm glad you posted this quote! For those who have not read it, Leopold is referencing a time when he shot a wolf. Though Leopold was an avid hunter and a conservationist well ahead of his time.

There is another Leopold quote I would like to share, "To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering." The jaguar is one of the "cogs"...it got dropped on the floor for a minute, but we found it again, now let's not lose it for good.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Just so no one is confused: We don't need a federal designation on the land in order to conserve this jaguar species.

Jaguars have long used this land. In recent years, with more and more trail cams and other technology, they have become more visible. I have long hunted this area, harvesting many deer and two mountain lions over the years. Have never seen a jaguar during the day, but have seen them in my hunting area in night photos. In this same area, I've logged dozens of mountain lions. That's just to give you an idea of much more secrative the jags are.

The federal land designations are used to control use of land, and activities that can be done on them. If we allow these types of federal designations, we may begin losing hunting rights to them, as several animal rights groups are using these designations to try to stop all hunting. Remember, this designation allows the Feds to stop activity "that may" impeded the species. Way too open to interpretation.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Just because you get paid for dead livestock doesn't make it OK. How would like to go out to your pasture and see a bunch of your livestock laying dead. It would be demoralizing to think of the resources spent on raising the livestock to have them slaughtered. I no longer dairy farm, but I can assure you I would have rather made money from selling milk than getting a check for a dead animal assuming payment was equal.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from coachsjike wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

hmmm...maybe less people will illegally cross the borders of those two states!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Proverbs wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

The cat in the picture was named "Macho B" by AZ Game & Fish biologists. They are the same people who killed it by repeatedly injecting it with sedatives so they could study it. Then they tried to cover it up by saying Macho B had a kidney problem. Thanks to a whistle blower who got tired of G&F biologists working outside of regs, the truth came out.

Anyway, this federal designation is a bad idea. It has many negative consequences, and many people no longer believe these consequences are unintended. For example, there is a political hot potato involving reopening a mine in the area. This designation surely will hurt further efforts to open the mine.

Another prime example of these federal designations, which end up hurting people: You've heard of Tombstone, right? "The town too tough to die?" It's also in southern Arizona, and it's dying right now because of a federal designation of "critical habitat" for some owls in the area. Last year there was a massive wildfire (Monument Fire) in the area. The monsoon rains that followed caused mud and rock slides because the vegetation was wiped out. In turn, the pipes that supply Tombstone's water for drinking and fire protection were wiped out. Parts of the miles-long line are under 12-15 feet of rock, debris and mud. This "critical habitat" designations prevents the town from repairing its water supply with modern equipment. Google it, and you will see just how ABSURDLY ridiculous this order its. The Feds won't even allow a wheelbarrow to be used (let alone a backhoe or heavy equipment) because a wheelbarrow is considered "mechanized" and modern and simply will not be allowed. The Feds said the town can use horses, shovels, and people on foot. That's it.

This pipe is 26 miles long. It was in place before Arizona was a state. It was in place long before there was a National Forest Service, and before anyone coined the term "critical habitat."

Don't feed me any poetic lines, because when the rubber meets the road these days, common sense is gone when the Feds are involved!

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hhack wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

It sounds like the Federal government is using the Jaguar as an excuse to push an agenda that the article is not eluding to. The US fish and wildlife service is corrupt and anything they have their hand in is not going to be good, they could **** up a wet dream. I have nothing against Jaguars moving into areas naturally on their own, but with the US fish and wildlife stepping in we are going to have to watch this like a hawk.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kyle VanBritson wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

While this is a very neat idea and great from a conservation point of view,concerning the jaguars, is this exactly a smart decision? My thoughts are: How will jaguars impact the natural ecosystem? How are locals going to react to the fact they now have a jungle cat roaming not too far from them? Is this a high fence operation or more of a free roam operation? Just some thoughts/concerns about it. While it seems like they've given this great thought and planning, I just don't know how smart it is to dump jungle cats into a habitat they only reportedly roamed a couple hundred years ago, alot can change in a couple hundred years...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hjwarr3 wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Does it actually say anywhere that they are planning on "reintroducing" the cats? Sounds to me like it is just keeping that area of land protected from development or progression, not dumping a bunch of new cats off in the desert.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Great quote Pep. Thank you for sharing.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

The problem with these kinds of introductions (or as pointed out "protection") is that the animals are introduced/protected etc and when their population reaches established goals set by biologists; the anti-hunting organizations simply file lawsuits to keep hunting seasons from happening. The fact is, if the forest service was allowed to do their job and manage these predators to keep their numbers at goal levels there would not be such an outcry from ranchers and sportsmen. Unfortunately, the forest service would be better off not doing these protections/reintroductions if their biologists are not allowed to do their job.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from DesertWalker wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Well as an Arizona resident I having spent a countless number of days in the desert and sky islands I have not seen one and do not know anyone who has. I have heard of people who have seen them though. Now with that being said the article said nothing about reintroducing the animal to the area, it simply said that the area that they have been seen would be protected from development. Its not like when I am out I can harvest one of these animals if I was to see one. So with this being said all this seems to do is to protect the development of land based off of spotting of the jaguar. How does this hurt? Now we have more hunting land for other animals that we dont have to worry about becoming developed.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from spuddog wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Some good comments here. This is not the same as wolf reintroduction. The Jaguars are already there, but they mostly wander in from mexico. Jaguars live in very diverse habitat. Not all are Jungle cats. This is not a situation where they are going to become over populated like cougars in California. They had a slim population even before they were extirpated. This is fringe territory for them. I'm not sure about the land issues. Proverbs, you may have some good points here and maybe this isn't the way to do it. That aside, I'd love to see a population of Jaguars return to the SouthWest. You have less of a chance of running into one than you do a cougar. I do know two people who have see them. One was a guide down by Wilcox whose dogs thought they had a cougar treed. One was an old guy who spent a lot of time up in the Santa Catalina's outside of Tucson. AZ has some very unique wildlife (parrots, coatis, javelina, etc). The jaguar is part of this. I might move home just for the chance to see one.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Regarding the governments compensation of livestock being killed by wolves, yea you might get some compensation for any livestock that are directly killed by wolves, but that takes time and a lot of paperwork, and does not compensate for the following- a rancher had wolves harass his herd, killing a couple of cows, they panicked and down came fences, more stock injured, the herd aborted the calves, and the rancher had a huge expense moving the remaining animals to safer pasture in the dead of winter. No federal compensation for those expenses. So don't tell me that reintroducing jags is worth it, especially if it is not coming out of your pocket.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from spuddog wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

RJ, you really don't get this. This isn't reintroduction. No one is moving animals. Unless something radically changed the jaguar population would never be anywhere close to the size of the current mountain lion population and jaguars are even more reclusive. Wolves are in packs and course animals. Cats spot and stalk. Wolves and Jaguars are apples and oranges.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Fat guy Aaron wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

I live in Southern Arizona, we have known we have Jaguars forever, They won't adversely effect the ecosystem because they are a native species. I am glad they are being protected after a dumb ass contractor for Arizona Game and fish killed the last one. As soon as that one was gone, there was another one roaming his territory, There are more out there than you think. every couple of years lion doge tree one and we get new pictures. We have also found ocelots. Some of the mountains down here are so rugged you don't know what the hell is going to be in them, I'm glad they have some protection now.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from mike0714 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

peppeli bravo!!!!!!!! I have traveled all over and Escudilla and Sipe Wildlife area are still my favorite places on earth! First time I have heard anyone quote form Aldo Leopold used outside of bio class or during studies with AZGFD! This passage and the one about the killing of the last grizzly on Escudilla where the inspiration for me to get Environmental biology degree. (ALL others out there who have not read them DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jay wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Reintroducing an apex predator into a region that has been void for over 100 years. Boy, this sounds familiar......Oh yeah, how could I almost forget. Wolves were reintroduced to the northern rockies and that move has worked out extremely well.

To make a mistake the first time is human. To make the same mistake again is ignorance.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bass bomber wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

I don't think they are reintroducing the cats. They have been slowing coming north for years now. I think its a good idea because we basically kicked them out of their land. But I can see what everyone else is saying about the wolf introductions nit going well and if this would be like that.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Quoting Ron, "here you go again"
One more time we are setting up a protected area for a predator, and again it is the folks that live on the edge that are hurt, hard working ranchers will lose more livestock to a predator and will be unable to defend their livestock or their land for that matter, from the jags. The grizzlies in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming were not re-introduced, they were "protected" and see how well that is doing.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from DSMbirddog wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

I wouldn't mind having the jaguars around but it needs to be handled wisely (this is always a problem) and comprehensively for reimbursement for livestock loss and management of the jaguar population should it rebound. I would really doubt that the jaguar population was ever very high. They were loners for the most part and had large territories. They need to leave the huggy feely stuff out of the equation and that is always an issue.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from tybostev5 wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

I am from southern New Mexico and a few years ago (3 or 4) a guy from the bootheel of NM was hunting cougars with his hounds when they treed a jaguar. So yes, there are Jaguars living in this area.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Red Salas wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

coachsjike I agree with you.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from NCHunter wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

There are a few things here I would like to see clarified

1. Is this land publicly or privately held, or a mixture of both?

2. If there are private holdings inside the area can they be developed with private money? The way the article reads the designation only applies to Federally funded projects and not to State or Private projects.

"According to the story, the designation means that federal agencies cannot fund or authorize any activities that may adversely modify the critical habitat area"

3. If this does stop private development will land owners be compensated for their losses?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from mike0714 wrote 1 year 33 weeks ago

Also anyone who is not for this is insane! The AZGFD has had this distinction on the books since the 90's and has been trying to get federal help for years! Also Macho B was caught because 2 idiots thought it would be cool to catch one and baited a mountain lion foot snare with jaguar scat. Macho B was also the oldest living Jaguar on record and had a bad reaction to the first time it was sedated.(you cant remove a big cat from these traps without sedation). Almost two weeks later scientist concluded that the cat was having health problems recaptured it. after a vet checked macho b and found kidney damage euthanization was the only option. It was not the fault of anyone but the two people who set the scat with the trap and they both have been arrested and charged with crimes.

finally wolves are nothing like jaguars!!!! there are maybe a half dozen in the whole state. they have similar space and food requirements a a large tom Mountain lion. The country that they are found in is extremely rugged and not great for ranching. PS Jay and RJ my friend from Patagonia has seen only one Jaguar in over 40 years of living, ranching, and hunting In the area. Yet he has killed mountain lions 8 of the last 10 years and see's at least a half dozen a year. what do you think is the bigger problem?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jcarlin wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

This will clear the way for naming everything north of the 35th parallel critical Sasquatch territory and finally finishing off the economy.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from iapark wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

Loss of livestock is a terrible argument against reintroducing animals to where they once existed before we impacted their existence. Its my understanding that ranchers can be reimbursed for loss of livestock and get money for methods besides barb wire to prevent predation, one example of such funding:

Program

15.666 Endangered Species Conservation-wolf Livestock Loss Compensation And Prevention

"This financial assistance opportunity can be used by eligible States and Indian tribes in supporting projects that assist livestock producers in undertaking proactive, non-lethal activities to reduce the risk of livestock loss due to predation by wolves or to compensate livestock producers for livestock losses caused by wolves. Appropriated funds will be divided equally in support of these two objectives. "

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 1 year 34 weeks ago

That's the kind of romantic cr@p that causes loss of livestock. try explaining to a sheep rancher that has lost a quarter of his spring lambs to wolves or coyotes that it is ok, so there can be this mystic fake love affair with the spirit of a wolf.

-3 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment